Would you be interest in a new Top RPGs poll? (READ THE OP)

[boobio]

The codex should have a top Japanese RPG poll right guys?

 

[Chainsaw Gutsfuck]

We have a top 10 console RPGs: http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8869

 

[Black Angel]

What? Is it 25/75 or the other way around?

The problem with the rolls being as important as the player's input is that it makes the combat to rely too much on randomness. The problem is not when a system tempts you to reload, the problem is when a system forces you to reload multiple times because luck doesn't smile you.

Seriously? Again, look at Eyestabber's video I previously linked. By that fucking logic, the guy should reload the moment that first bola get blocked, or that time when he managed to head-choke a strong enemy with a bola but his first attack against him missed despite of 95% THC. AoD being a newer cRPG nailed the combat system. It wasn't perfect, and wasn't as nuanced as Underrail's (especially since AoD had different focus compared to UR), but it was a step in the right direction that it absolutely doesn't forces you to reload just because luck doesn't smile on you, and the rolls are just as important as player's skills and tactics on what attacks and items to use, and when.

Anyway, we're actually straying from my initial argument against Sigourn's statement that Fallout: New Vegas had more RPG opportunities than Fallout 1&2. It wasn't a matter of player's skills and tactics vs. dice rolls, because there are no dice rolls at all in New Vegas. It's a matter of player's skills in terms of twitch-reflex, mouse-shooting aim, generally what to expect from players when playing first-person shooter. I know you asked what I meant with player's skills vs. character's skills in RPGs in general, but it wasn't relevant to my initial argument where I reject Sigourn's notion that NV had more RPG opportunities.

As for the second point, my intent was to show you that giving importance on player's skill has nothing to do with action games. Stuff like tactical games are also dependant on player's skill, as you just said. So I take it that we agree on that at least.

Yeah, but like I said, when I first mentioned player's skills vs. character's skills, I didn't meant use of what attacks and what items, and when, vs. dice rolls, etc etc, because New Vegas doesn't have rolls at all. Sure, there's still some character's skills involved in New Vegas like minimum STR and Skills requirement for weapons but their involvement in actual combat gameplay were rather minimal since it's a fucking first-person shooter and there are no dice rolls at all. Not to mention that atrocious Lockpicking and Hacking minigames imported from Fallout 3. So, it was my mistake in the first place, because I shouldn't have said, "Combat relies on player's skills", but instead, "Gameplay (mostly) relies on player's skills".

 

[HeatEXTEND]

reading your posts is like wading through a quagmire

 

[Chainsaw Gutsfuck]

Seriously? Again, look at Eyestabber's video I previously linked. By that fucking logic, the guy should reload the moment that first bola get blocked, or that time when he managed to head-choke a strong enemy with a bola but his first attack against him missed despite of 95% THC.

Except I never claimed that you should reload every time you miss a roll. What I am saying is that if the combat system is heavily relying on rolls, you will die a lot of times because of said rolls. While if the combat is mostly dependant on character's skills, most of your deaths will happen because you didn't play well enough.

AoD (..) absolutely doesn't forces you to reload just because luck doesn't smile on you

I didn't say anything about AoD specifically.

- - -

When I am talking about the dependance of dice rolls in combat, I am talking about how important is to succed in rolls in order to win an encounter. To go with examples: a game where the player's skill and the rolls are 50-50 at determining the result of an encounter, if you die 10 times, half of them was because of bad rolls. Where in a game where it's 90-10, if you die 10 times, only 1 death was because of bad rolls. (obv. I am talking about averages here)

To help you visualise the concept:

-Chess is 100℅ player's skill based.

-Flipping the coin is 100℅ "roll" based.

-Jagged Alliance 2 is mostly skill based, because if you don't know how to play and just go around shooting people, even if you score some good rolls, you will still die. While if you know how to play and use proper tactics you can win even if you score some bad rolls.

Anyway, we're actually straying from my initial argument against Sigourn's statement that Fallout: New Vegas had more RPG opportunities than Fallout 1&2. It wasn't a matter of player's skills and tactics vs. dice rolls, because there are no dice rolls at all in New Vegas. It's a matter of player's skills in terms of twitch-reflex, mouse-shooting aim, generally what to expect from players when playing first-person shooter. I know you asked what I meant with player's skills vs. character's skills in RPGs in general, but it wasn't relevant to my initial argument where I reject Sigourn's notion that NV had more RPG opportunities.

I know all this, that's why I clarified from the start that I am not talking about fallout specifically:

How exactly can the combat "rely" on character's skill? Your build gives you a certain variety of combat options, but the result of an encounter shouldn't be decided from the player's skill?

(Not talking about fallout here, the point is about RPGs in general)

 

[Lady_Error]

Overall, I'm very interested in what would happen if everyone would voice their opinion without having to adhere to a pesky voting system of point distribution. Considering this makes 95 games in total, if I'm not mistaken, it's already less of a pain in the ass when compared to the 190+ games polled in the 2012-2016 voting. So yeah. There's a lot of untapped potential here.

If you want to do a poll, you can already do it. However, the problem is that a poll on top of a thread has only 30 options.

So if you do something like "Best combatfag RPG", "Best storyfag RPG", "Best JRPG", you can do it that way.

Or simply start a thread and ask everyone to name up to 10 of their favorites in that category and then simply add up the votes (more work for the pollster in this case).

Or first do a thread with people naming their 10 favorites and then do a poll of the top 30 of those. That'd be very thorough.

 

[Valky]

As long as weeaboo shit stays out of it.

 

[Black Angel]

reading your posts is like wading through a quagmire

English isn't my native language, so would you please tell me where am I not elaborating my points properly?

This is getting off-topic to the thread

Except I never claimed that you should reload every time you miss a roll. What I am saying is that if the combat system is heavily relying on rolls, you will die a lot of times because of said rolls.

Okay, now would you tell me a cRPG where this is the case? Where the combat system heavily relying on rolls resulted in us dying because of said rolls?

While if the combat is mostly dependant on character's skills, most of your deaths will happen because you didn't play well enough.

But isn't that the point of having to learn to master the game, no? If you haven't mastered the game to the point of finally played the game well enough, wouldn't it be natural for you to die a lot?
Also, is there even a cRPG like that? That the combat system relied mostly on character's skills, resulting on deaths because of not playing the game well enough?

I didn't say anything about AoD specifically.

- - -

When I am talking about the dependance of dice rolls in combat, I am talking about how important is to succed in rolls in order to win an encounter. To go with examples: a game where the player's skill and the rolls are 50-50 at determining the result of an encounter, if you die 10 times, half of them was because of bad rolls. Where in a game where it's 90-10, if you die 10 times, only 1 death was because of bad rolls. (obv. I am talking about averages here)

To help you visualise the concept:

-Chess is 100℅ player's skill based.

-Flipping the coin is 100℅ "roll" based.

-Jagged Alliance 2 is mostly skill based, because if you don't know how to play and just go around shooting people, even if you score some good rolls, you will still die. While if you know how to play and use proper tactics you can win even if you score some bad rolls.

And I'm only bringing up AoD as an example where a cRPG's combat mechanics consist of evenly relied on both player's skills in utilizing different tactics and character's skills to even the odds of the dice rolls, because I disagree with your notion that a good cRPG combat mechanic is the one where rolls are of secondary concern.

- - -

"To go with examples: a game where the player's skill and the rolls are 50-50 at determining the result of an encounter, if you die 10 times, half of them was because of bad rolls. Where in a game where it's 90-10, if you die 10 times, only 1 death was because of bad rolls. (obv. I am talking about averages here)"
Pardon me, I'm just a newfag and I don't have any experience in P&P, but how would you explain, with this example, the cases where one missed an attack with ~95% THC, like, 3 times in a row?\

I know all this, that's why I clarified from the start that I am not talking about fallout specifically:

How exactly can the combat "rely" on character's skill? Your build gives you a certain variety of combat options, but the result of an encounter shouldn't be decided from the player's skill?

(Not talking about fallout here, the point is about RPGs in general)

I already explained it.

To-Hit Chance. Tbh, being a cRPG newfag I'm not exactly sure how the older cRPGs works in this regard since they mostly tried to emulate P&P RPGs. More recent cRPGs like AoD had crystal clear THC formula shown when you hover your cursor over an enemy, basically your character's Attack Accuracy - Enemy's Defense, which then added or reduced further based on what type of attack you're going to use (Fast, Regular, Power, Aimed etc etc), and if you're attacking an enemy from their side or behind. And then there's Underrail which is pretty much the same but there's also some hidden factors like darkness, your weapon's capability (max/optimal range), ranged attacks versus evasion, melee vs dodge, etc etc.

And then you mentioned things like this

For a combat system to actually be good it must rely primarily on player's skill. If the rolls are more important than the actual tactics then the combat is not a test of your tactical skills, but a matter of reloading the last save until you get the right rolls. A little randomness is good to spice things up but it shouldn't override the importance of player input.

I get what you were trying to say, except you were bringing up how, when a cRPG put more emphasis and importance on rolls instead of player's input, it became a matter of reloading last save. Thing is, I never know a cRPG that do that kind of shit. Most of cRPGs I've played until this point kind of have a balance between player's input and dice rolls. You can prepare all the items you want to utilize on this next particular encounters, you already know where to position your character, you already know what attacks to use, when to use it, and on who to use that attack.... but there's still the dice rolls that would influence how the combat would play out (~95% THC can still be missing the mark/dodged/blocked). So, I think you're making up a problem where none existed.

 

[Chainsaw Gutsfuck]

Okay, now would you tell me a cRPG where this is the case? Where the combat system heavily relying on rolls resulted in us dying because of said rolls?

So, I think you're making up a problem where none existed.

I am talking purely out of principle. You disagreed with me on the basis that player's skill must be more important than the rolls, so I explained to you what would happen if that wasn't the case.

But isn't that the point of having to learn to master the game, no? If you haven't mastered the game to the point of finally played the game well enough, wouldn't it be natural for you to die a lot?

Yes? The point is that mastering the systems in JA 2 matters because the focus is on player's skill. If we make a mod where we increase the importance of rolls and decrease the importance of player's skill, your understanding of the systems would matter less, and your luck would matter more than before. If we completely remove the focus on player's skill then the combat would rely entirely on randomness. Not sure how else can I explain that to you.

I get what you were trying to say, except you wse bringing up how, when a cRPG put more emphasis and importance on rolls instead of player's input, it became a matter of reloading last save.

When you die, it's always a matter of reloading the last save. But you can die because you haven't mastered the systems and you can die because of random rolls. If most of your deaths are because of the first reason, then we have a good combat system.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

reading your posts is like wading through a quagmire

English isn't my native language, so would you please tell me where am I not elaborating my points properly?

You seem to constantly add and detract to the argument while seemingly-but-not-actualy-sorta-kinda-moving-the-goalposts. Very tiring in a turn-based conversation. I got the exact same feeling from your recent posts in the DS thread, it's funny because I don't get the impression you're doing it on purpose

 

[xxxCatholicKillahxxx]

Everyone interested could simply keep a list up to date on their profile page. Likewise those keen on knowing what a certain collective enjoys or not can make a 'poll' of their own by going through said profile pages.